In Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), upholding its regulation that prohibited a specific type of credit transaction known as "postdating". The case was initiated by Family Publications Service, Inc., who argued that this FTC rule exceeded its statutory authority and violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. However, the court held that Congress had given broad powers to FTC to prevent deceptive practices and protect consumers' interests in relation to credit transactions. Therefore, it found no violation of constitutional rights or overreach on part of FTC's regulatory power with respect to postdated check plans used by companies like Family Publications Services for magazine subscriptions payment schemes.

In the dissenting opinion for Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., Justice William O. Douglas argued that the Federal Reserve Board had overstepped its authority by creating Regulation Z under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). He contended that Congress did not intend to give such broad powers to an administrative agency and that it was inappropriate for courts to defer so heavily to these agencies when interpreting laws. Douglas believed this case represented a dangerous expansion of executive power at the expense of legislative intent and judicial oversight. Furthermore, he disagreed with how TILA was applied in this particular case, arguing it should only apply if there is evidence of deception or unfair practices on part of lenders.